Comments
Life in Architecture: Sunitha Kondur and Bijoy Ramachandran
Great architecture is so much more than just some low-e glass and solar panels, say the principal architects of Hundredhands
Aditi Sharma Maheshwari
3 February 2019
Blogger, dog mom
Architects Sunitha Kondur and Bijoy Ramachandran are the directors of Hundredhands, a multidisciplinary design studio in Bangalore that specialises in a wide spectrum of works – residential, institutional, industrial and commercial architecture and interior design, and even films. The duo focuses on the urban context of building via the analytical process of drawing, real or virtual model-making, detailing and a control on the process of building. Some of their most renowned works comprise the Bangalore International Centre, Miraya Hotel, VDB Corporate Office Bangalore and their much-talked-about films, Doshi and A Conversation with Husain. Their works heavily hinge on the usage of locally available materials, recognising local skills and engaging with craftsmen.
In an exclusive interview with Houzz, they share their thoughts and views on the current state of architecture in India, throw light on some of their renowned works and give us a glimpse into their future plans.
In an exclusive interview with Houzz, they share their thoughts and views on the current state of architecture in India, throw light on some of their renowned works and give us a glimpse into their future plans.
Photo by Mallikarjun Katakol
What is your design philosophy?
The studio’s approach is grounded in the search for contextually appropriate solutions. Special emphasis is given to the response to climate, the existing scale and character of the context, appropriate use of materials and construction techniques, and the development of the project aesthetic as a result of these specific conditions. We believe that this recognition of what exists leads to a more sensitive speculation of what can be. The work seeks to identify appropriate metaphors for the particular exigencies of a project and our larger identity as a people – a search for ‘the beautiful idea’.
Your works range from large-scale master plans to architecture, interior design, environmental and graphic design, and film. Is there any other genre in design that you’re still exploring or would like to explore?
Unfortunately, we haven’t done too many large master plans recently and have been involved mostly in architecture and interior design. We are hoping to carve out some time to do independent research and documentation of our city. This has been a long-standing desire. We are inspired by the study and proposals Susie Kim and Fred Koetter (Koetter, Kim & Associates) did early in their careers in Boston – looking at four areas in the city and intervening with wonderfully detailed architectural strategies.
What is your design philosophy?
The studio’s approach is grounded in the search for contextually appropriate solutions. Special emphasis is given to the response to climate, the existing scale and character of the context, appropriate use of materials and construction techniques, and the development of the project aesthetic as a result of these specific conditions. We believe that this recognition of what exists leads to a more sensitive speculation of what can be. The work seeks to identify appropriate metaphors for the particular exigencies of a project and our larger identity as a people – a search for ‘the beautiful idea’.
Your works range from large-scale master plans to architecture, interior design, environmental and graphic design, and film. Is there any other genre in design that you’re still exploring or would like to explore?
Unfortunately, we haven’t done too many large master plans recently and have been involved mostly in architecture and interior design. We are hoping to carve out some time to do independent research and documentation of our city. This has been a long-standing desire. We are inspired by the study and proposals Susie Kim and Fred Koetter (Koetter, Kim & Associates) did early in their careers in Boston – looking at four areas in the city and intervening with wonderfully detailed architectural strategies.
Site: Miraya Hotel & Residences, Bangalore
Photo by Nathan Willock
What, according to you, should define urban design?
Creating a plan for a city is a long-term proposition. It involves a large number of stakeholders working together. This long gestation and the need for a constructive collaboration are both inconvenient conditions for local authorities, who look for short-term solutions to show as achievements during their tentative tenures. Planning requires vision and political will. There is also a serious lack of awareness of what a plan does, how it works. Usually it is either a hastily put together document or a grandiose gesture, to serve as a legacy for the governing authorities. The Bangalore Masterplan, prepared in an incredible two-year period, was an example of the former, and the Amaravati plan which is now being discussed is an example of the latter. Neither of these models will work. Urban planning and design must set out to do two things, primarily:
1. Integrate a real understanding of existing conditions to help lay out areas for habitation. These are usually long-term propositions which estimate growth and the changing conditions with regard to demographics, economics, climate, accessibility, nature of work, and so on. Some of the successful planning exercises, including our very own Basavanagudi and Malleswaram (in Bangalore), show a real resilience and ability to accommodate change, and retain a sense of place. This idea of addressing time is an essential component of a valid plan.
2. Urban planning and design is about accommodating the qualitative requirements of the growing city, but it also has to serve the need for the creation of a real sense of place, a sense of identity and particular location. This usually comes from careful observation and understanding of the location and culture of the context. A sense of place is also an essential part of a valid plan. Most current plans, proposed as part of the smart city project or new capital cities, do not sufficiently address both conditions. The smart city proposals have mostly focused on artificially demarcated areas within larger cities, tackling issues to do with the management of services and utilities. These propositions tend to argue that an efficient city in terms of management is all that is necessary. These strategies are essential, but this must be augmented by a deep-rooted understanding of the location and the wider region.
In terms of a sense of place, we have also seen, since 2000, after the International Tech Park came to Bangalore, a real orientation towards a notion of branding and international precedent as a real driver for what a place looks like. We must evaluate this carefully … Bangalore today seems like Nowhere Land without any real quality; it is unable to accommodate the demands of a rapidly growing population. To be fair, though, the pressures we face in our cities are unprecedented. Most of our models continue to be from western[ised] places such as Singapore, where the pressures of rapid growth and complex social structures simply do not exist at this scale. We may be the future of those cities, and how we tackle these challenges of time and place, will serve as lessons for them.
Photo by Nathan Willock
What, according to you, should define urban design?
Creating a plan for a city is a long-term proposition. It involves a large number of stakeholders working together. This long gestation and the need for a constructive collaboration are both inconvenient conditions for local authorities, who look for short-term solutions to show as achievements during their tentative tenures. Planning requires vision and political will. There is also a serious lack of awareness of what a plan does, how it works. Usually it is either a hastily put together document or a grandiose gesture, to serve as a legacy for the governing authorities. The Bangalore Masterplan, prepared in an incredible two-year period, was an example of the former, and the Amaravati plan which is now being discussed is an example of the latter. Neither of these models will work. Urban planning and design must set out to do two things, primarily:
1. Integrate a real understanding of existing conditions to help lay out areas for habitation. These are usually long-term propositions which estimate growth and the changing conditions with regard to demographics, economics, climate, accessibility, nature of work, and so on. Some of the successful planning exercises, including our very own Basavanagudi and Malleswaram (in Bangalore), show a real resilience and ability to accommodate change, and retain a sense of place. This idea of addressing time is an essential component of a valid plan.
2. Urban planning and design is about accommodating the qualitative requirements of the growing city, but it also has to serve the need for the creation of a real sense of place, a sense of identity and particular location. This usually comes from careful observation and understanding of the location and culture of the context. A sense of place is also an essential part of a valid plan. Most current plans, proposed as part of the smart city project or new capital cities, do not sufficiently address both conditions. The smart city proposals have mostly focused on artificially demarcated areas within larger cities, tackling issues to do with the management of services and utilities. These propositions tend to argue that an efficient city in terms of management is all that is necessary. These strategies are essential, but this must be augmented by a deep-rooted understanding of the location and the wider region.
In terms of a sense of place, we have also seen, since 2000, after the International Tech Park came to Bangalore, a real orientation towards a notion of branding and international precedent as a real driver for what a place looks like. We must evaluate this carefully … Bangalore today seems like Nowhere Land without any real quality; it is unable to accommodate the demands of a rapidly growing population. To be fair, though, the pressures we face in our cities are unprecedented. Most of our models continue to be from western[ised] places such as Singapore, where the pressures of rapid growth and complex social structures simply do not exist at this scale. We may be the future of those cities, and how we tackle these challenges of time and place, will serve as lessons for them.
Site: Taaqademy, Bangalore
Photo by Mallikarjun Katakol
What are your thoughts on sustainable, accountable design?
Sustainability (in terms of the careful use of resources, response to existing conditions, and the critical notion of equity and balance in development) is really important. Unfortunately, sustainability has been reduced to rating systems and check-off lists. Nuance is often missed in this objective evaluation and the long-term effects are often ignored. There are two primary challenges with the existing means by which sustainability is ‘measured’: one to do with perceptions and the other to do with implementation. The general perception is that the green rating systems are the defining yardstick against which ‘good’ architecture can be measured and that a high rating then automatically means that something meaningful has been produced. This is a warped perception. Great architecture is so much more than just some low-e glass and solar panels.
We recently came across a new platform designed to measure energy use based on choices made (building services, materials, and so on). The tool uses empirical data to calculate the relative value of these choices. This is a lot more useful as a way to self-regulate and to communicate the implications to potential clients. (Click here to take a look.)
The second problem is that in spite of making the simple obvious choices with regard to orientation, ventilation, and so on, conditions are often a lot more adverse and expectations are usually unreasonably high. This puts a lot of pressure to use mechanical systems to improve the quality of the environment. Managing expectations and costs is a huge challenge.
In one of your interviews, you quoted Graham Morrison: “architecture without adjectives”. What does that signify to you?
Unfortunately architecture these days needs adjectives to validate itself. Sustainable or green or accountable architecture, and so on. We are not trying to establish a unique or signature style. Our responses are the result of the myriad influences we encounter along the way in the life of a project. Clients, contractors and our own staff impact the work fundamentally. Having said that, we are deeply influenced by the work of Allies and Morrison and identify with their pragmatic, restrained approach to the work.
We had the great good fortune of working with Graham Morrison and his team on a hotel in Bangalore and it was a wonderful lesson in assimilating complex programme and service requirements and creating something which seemed effortless. This is a style we would like to pursue – of the obvious, the inevitable and the graceful, or as Graham calls it, an architecture without adjectives. His practice has been around since the early ’80s and has consistently produced work that is both sophisticated and understated. At the core of this work is both a real interest in understanding the places where they build and their incredible ability to develop an internal logic that helps organise and articulate architectural manoeuvres. The work is both appropriate and particular. We are hoping to create such places that seem obvious yet special and enjoyable.
Photo by Mallikarjun Katakol
What are your thoughts on sustainable, accountable design?
Sustainability (in terms of the careful use of resources, response to existing conditions, and the critical notion of equity and balance in development) is really important. Unfortunately, sustainability has been reduced to rating systems and check-off lists. Nuance is often missed in this objective evaluation and the long-term effects are often ignored. There are two primary challenges with the existing means by which sustainability is ‘measured’: one to do with perceptions and the other to do with implementation. The general perception is that the green rating systems are the defining yardstick against which ‘good’ architecture can be measured and that a high rating then automatically means that something meaningful has been produced. This is a warped perception. Great architecture is so much more than just some low-e glass and solar panels.
We recently came across a new platform designed to measure energy use based on choices made (building services, materials, and so on). The tool uses empirical data to calculate the relative value of these choices. This is a lot more useful as a way to self-regulate and to communicate the implications to potential clients. (Click here to take a look.)
The second problem is that in spite of making the simple obvious choices with regard to orientation, ventilation, and so on, conditions are often a lot more adverse and expectations are usually unreasonably high. This puts a lot of pressure to use mechanical systems to improve the quality of the environment. Managing expectations and costs is a huge challenge.
In one of your interviews, you quoted Graham Morrison: “architecture without adjectives”. What does that signify to you?
Unfortunately architecture these days needs adjectives to validate itself. Sustainable or green or accountable architecture, and so on. We are not trying to establish a unique or signature style. Our responses are the result of the myriad influences we encounter along the way in the life of a project. Clients, contractors and our own staff impact the work fundamentally. Having said that, we are deeply influenced by the work of Allies and Morrison and identify with their pragmatic, restrained approach to the work.
We had the great good fortune of working with Graham Morrison and his team on a hotel in Bangalore and it was a wonderful lesson in assimilating complex programme and service requirements and creating something which seemed effortless. This is a style we would like to pursue – of the obvious, the inevitable and the graceful, or as Graham calls it, an architecture without adjectives. His practice has been around since the early ’80s and has consistently produced work that is both sophisticated and understated. At the core of this work is both a real interest in understanding the places where they build and their incredible ability to develop an internal logic that helps organise and articulate architectural manoeuvres. The work is both appropriate and particular. We are hoping to create such places that seem obvious yet special and enjoyable.
Vinutha and Gautam’s home, Bangalore
Photo by Ravi Asrani
You made two films – Architecture & the City: A Bangalore Perspective, and Doshi. What inspired you to foray into the field of films?
The genesis of these films doesn’t lie in some grand narrative on film and architecture but in selfish and personal reasons. The first film was made in 2005, just about a year after we had started our studio and it was a way for us to understand the nature of practice in Bangalore. It was also a way to meet the architects who were doing interesting things in the city. Thanks to this, we’re still in touch with many of these collaborators. Doshi came about because my brother Premjit Ramachandran had just returned to India and was looking to do something.
I had always thought that Dr Doshi would make a fantastic subject for a film (like Professor Levy in Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors) and here was my chance. We called him on a Friday and were in Ahmedabad without a camera or any equipment on Monday to begin shooting. Scrambling around for equipment, we finally got to Sangath around 11 a.m. and immediately began recording – no script, no plan! In some sense, this spontaneous way of working produced conversations of rare candour, and I think our film is valuable because of this. This year that we spent on the film has had a profound impact on both of us.
Your practice is sensitive towards climatic and social context, while also staying true to the form and the craft. You also experiment with modern technology in your work. How do you balance the two?
These concerns are not mutually exclusive. Through the work we are hoping to give expression to the particular conditions that inform our design processes. We believe that it is from the real understanding of the particular and specific that one may find universal and timeless values.
Where do you think Indian architecture is headed?
Though I come from a generation that still uses words like timeless, repose, and so on, I do think there is real value in considering architecture also as ephemera – something that may last only for a short time and then be re-composed to make something new. This isn’t where Indian architecture is headed – and making such a pronouncement is foolhardy – but we are interested in the idea of a kit of parts and the possibility of dismantling, reconfiguring and/or distributing these components.
Photo by Ravi Asrani
You made two films – Architecture & the City: A Bangalore Perspective, and Doshi. What inspired you to foray into the field of films?
The genesis of these films doesn’t lie in some grand narrative on film and architecture but in selfish and personal reasons. The first film was made in 2005, just about a year after we had started our studio and it was a way for us to understand the nature of practice in Bangalore. It was also a way to meet the architects who were doing interesting things in the city. Thanks to this, we’re still in touch with many of these collaborators. Doshi came about because my brother Premjit Ramachandran had just returned to India and was looking to do something.
I had always thought that Dr Doshi would make a fantastic subject for a film (like Professor Levy in Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors) and here was my chance. We called him on a Friday and were in Ahmedabad without a camera or any equipment on Monday to begin shooting. Scrambling around for equipment, we finally got to Sangath around 11 a.m. and immediately began recording – no script, no plan! In some sense, this spontaneous way of working produced conversations of rare candour, and I think our film is valuable because of this. This year that we spent on the film has had a profound impact on both of us.
Your practice is sensitive towards climatic and social context, while also staying true to the form and the craft. You also experiment with modern technology in your work. How do you balance the two?
These concerns are not mutually exclusive. Through the work we are hoping to give expression to the particular conditions that inform our design processes. We believe that it is from the real understanding of the particular and specific that one may find universal and timeless values.
Where do you think Indian architecture is headed?
Though I come from a generation that still uses words like timeless, repose, and so on, I do think there is real value in considering architecture also as ephemera – something that may last only for a short time and then be re-composed to make something new. This isn’t where Indian architecture is headed – and making such a pronouncement is foolhardy – but we are interested in the idea of a kit of parts and the possibility of dismantling, reconfiguring and/or distributing these components.
Site: K-Start, Bangalore
Photo by Gokul Rao Kadam
A dream project?
As architects we hope to work on projects where our ambitions and hopes align well with those of the large teams we usually work with. Projects where there is no real conversation about what is of value are the toughest ones. We must share this trajectory with our clients and the large teams involved.
Rafiq Azam, the wonderful Bangladeshi architect, told me that at the start of every project he gets the client to take the whole team (contractors, sub-contractors, vendors, consultants, and others) out to a retreat for a day at a nice hotel. There, along with the client and the consultants, Rafiq lays out the details of the project – its scope and ambition, the aspirations of the client, his values, potential challenges, and so on. This process has served Rafiq well. He has completed numerous projects [that are] both sublime conceptually [and] also built incredibly well. He credits this to a shared sense of ownership and a belief that the whole team is working together to do something meaningful. As urban designers, we hope to produce a detailed plan of our city which then becomes the base for a series of studies and interventions.
Read more:
Life in Architecture: Abin Chaudhuri
Tell us:
What are your thoughts on sustainable architecture?Share with us in Comments below.
Photo by Gokul Rao Kadam
A dream project?
As architects we hope to work on projects where our ambitions and hopes align well with those of the large teams we usually work with. Projects where there is no real conversation about what is of value are the toughest ones. We must share this trajectory with our clients and the large teams involved.
Rafiq Azam, the wonderful Bangladeshi architect, told me that at the start of every project he gets the client to take the whole team (contractors, sub-contractors, vendors, consultants, and others) out to a retreat for a day at a nice hotel. There, along with the client and the consultants, Rafiq lays out the details of the project – its scope and ambition, the aspirations of the client, his values, potential challenges, and so on. This process has served Rafiq well. He has completed numerous projects [that are] both sublime conceptually [and] also built incredibly well. He credits this to a shared sense of ownership and a belief that the whole team is working together to do something meaningful. As urban designers, we hope to produce a detailed plan of our city which then becomes the base for a series of studies and interventions.
Read more:
Life in Architecture: Abin Chaudhuri
Tell us:
What are your thoughts on sustainable architecture?Share with us in Comments below.
Related Stories
Working with professionals
How to Find an Architect That's Right for You
Make the construction and renovation of your home a pleasant and memorable journey by selecting the right architect
Full Story
Indian Homes
11 Indian Homes That Revolve Around Courtyards
Take inspiration from these homes that make a solid case for courtyards in urban life
Full Story
Decorating Guides
Building Secrets to a Cool, Breezy Home for Hot Indian Summers
Get updated on climate-responsive design strategies for a home that stays naturally cool all year round
Full Story
Working with professionals
What's the Difference Between an Architect and a Civil Engineer?
We clear up the confusion between the professional roles and scope of work of an architect and a civil engineer
Full Story
Architecture
These Indian Homes Know How To Combat Harsh Climate
See how these homes by SPASM, Kumar Moorthy & Associates and JPLUSDARCHITECTS mitigate the ramifications of harsh climate ahead of time
Full Story
Decorating Guides
What Are the Biggest Challenges in Renovating an Old House?
Here are some common problems which may arise during the renovation of an old property
Full Story
Indian Homes
How to Beat the Summer Heat by Keeping the Roof Cool
Here are ways to cope with the high summer temperatures that heat the roof and the top floors of residential buildings
Full Story
Decorating Guides
How to Design a Home That is Not a Burden on the Environment
Incorporate smart details with simple lifestyle changes to create a home that is kind to the planet
Full Story
Architecture
What Is Kerala Architecture?
Let's explore what design elements constitute traditional Kerala house architecture
Full Story
Architecture
Expert Speak: What Are the Best Materials for Home Elevations?
Houzz checks in with an expert about the the most sturdy and adaptable materials for home facades
Full Story